Recently, Carsten Levin wrote:
> We are producing 8-10 application for language training. Its a large
> project with 2-3 programmers, a graphical artist, a videoproduction
> team, text authors etc. etc.
>
> But now think if we find out that there is an error in one of our
> applications, in one of the scripts. We will supply them with a new
> version, and they can start importing and arranging ... lets say 200 or
> maybe 500 training sessions.
>
> What if we instead desided to put the scripts in another stack, a stack
> in only one version pr. application - instead of including it in every
> application.
> Now replacing this stack would replace the old script with the updated
> version.
> Replacing this file would be all we needed to do if we need to update
> all the applications.
>
> As we see it this strategy will work as long as you dont need to do any
> changes to the stack itself (like adding or moving fields, buttons etc.
> etc.).
>
> Hope to hear your opinion.
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here, but it sounds like you're
looking for opinions on separating the functional scripts from your content
stacks. We've done something related in two forms: desktop- and net-based
multimedia delivery. In both cases, we created a simple engine standalone
that is designed to open some explicit content stacks, either locally on the
desktop or on the Web. All the multimedia content is stored as extensible
files or stacks and read in by a "viewer" stack, which is driven by the
engine. Since the stacks that deal with the content are separate from the
engine, updates to the content/scripts can be done very easily and in the
case of net-based distribution, you literally get a write once, read
everywhere solution.
Regards,
Scott
_____________________________________________________________________
Scott Rossi Tactile Media - Multimedia & Design
Creative Director Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.tactilemedia.com
